Re: [tlhIngan Hol] combining {-meH} and {-bogh} on {-meH}'ed and {-bogh}'ed nouns
Thank you voragh and SuStel for taking the time to reply. But there's something I still don't understand. SuStel:
You can make a noun that participates in both a relative cause and a purpose clause, but I don't believe you can 'ej them. You can't say, for instance, nepbogh 'ej tojmeH which lies and for deceiving.
But saying {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} isn't somehow equivalent to the {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'} "romulan hunter-killer probe"? If the {nepbogh 'ej tojbogh mu'mey} is correct, then why would the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} be any different? We just substitute one type-9 with another. SuStel:
You CAN say nepbogh tojmeH mu'meylIj your words for deceiving which lie.
I hadn't thought of this possibility. SuStel:
But why would you want to say it this way? Why not say nepbogh mu'meylIj 'ej tojbogh your words which lie and which deceive?
I don't remember the exact context of the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey}; all I remember is that I was thinking something in Klingon, and my mind made the instinctive choice of combining {-bogh} and {-meH} this way. Of course you're right, and I agree with you. I could just say {nepbogh mu'meylIj 'ej tojbogh}. But I can't stop wondering about the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey}. I can't understand how/why it's any different from the allowed {nepbogh 'ej tojbogh}. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 4/27/2022 8:21 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
You can make a noun that participates in both a relative cause and a purpose clause, but I don't believe you can 'ej them. You can't say, for instance, nepbogh 'ej tojmeH which lies and for deceiving. But saying {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} isn't somehow equivalent to the {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'} "romulan hunter-killer probe"? If the {nepbogh 'ej tojbogh mu'mey} is correct, then why would the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} be any different? We just substitute one type-9 with another.
Relative clauses and purpose clauses work in entirely different ways for entirely different purposes. It's not just a case of saying "Eh, one type 9 suffix is just like every other!" In English, there is a formal, but not always observed, rule that when you conjoin words or phrases, they should be of like kind, such that one could syntactically substitute for the other without change. It's correct to say /if I see you and if I recognize you/ (two conditional clauses), but it's not correct to say /if I see you and while I am eating/ (a conditional clause and a while-clause). It's correct to say /apples and pears/ (two nouns) but not correct to say /apples and happy/ (a noun and an adjective). And so on. In all of canon, I believe Klingon has followed a similar rule, or at least we haven't seen a contradiction that I can remember. So besides not being a simple conjoining of similar type 9 verbs, trying to conjoin dissimilar clauses like this sets off alarm bells for me. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
There is a simple rule to follow when evaluating {-bogh} clauses: if you remove {-bogh}, the sentence should make sense. {nep 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} doesn't make sense at all. Thus there is something wrong with the relative clause as well. Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, April 27th, 2022 at 15.21, D qunen'oS <d.koun@outlook.com> wrote:
Thank you voragh and SuStel for taking the time to reply. But there's something I still don't understand.
SuStel:
You can make a noun that participates in both a relative cause and a purpose clause, but I don't believe you can 'ej them. You can't say, for instance, nepbogh 'ej tojmeH which lies and for deceiving.
But saying {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} isn't somehow equivalent to the {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'} "romulan hunter-killer probe"? If the {nepbogh 'ej tojbogh mu'mey} is correct, then why would the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} be any different? We just substitute one type-9 with another.
SuStel:
You CAN say nepbogh tojmeH mu'meylIj your words for deceiving which lie.
I hadn't thought of this possibility.
SuStel:
But why would you want to say it this way? Why not say nepbogh mu'meylIj 'ej tojbogh your words which lie and which deceive?
I don't remember the exact context of the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey}; all I remember is that I was thinking something in Klingon, and my mind made the instinctive choice of combining {-bogh} and {-meH} this way.
Of course you're right, and I agree with you. I could just say {nepbogh mu'meylIj 'ej tojbogh}. But I can't stop wondering about the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey}. I can't understand how/why it's any different from the allowed {nepbogh 'ej tojbogh}.
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (3)
-
D qunen'oS -
Iikka Hauhio -
SuStel